12015-10-21T00:36:20 *** Thireus has quit IRC
22015-10-21T01:14:19 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
32015-10-21T02:53:57 *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
42015-10-21T02:54:54 *** CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
52015-10-21T02:54:58 *** berndj has quit IRC
62015-10-21T02:55:10 *** berndj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
72015-10-21T02:55:31 *** berndj is now known as Guest60457
82015-10-21T02:55:49 *** CodeShark has quit IRC
92015-10-21T02:55:49 *** CodeShark_ has quit IRC
102015-10-21T02:56:10 *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112015-10-21T02:56:53 *** Guest60457 has quit IRC
122015-10-21T02:57:11 *** berndj-blackout has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132015-10-21T02:57:43 *** berndj-blackout has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142015-10-21T02:58:41 *** berndj-blackout has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152015-10-21T03:00:37 *** berndj-blackout has quit IRC
162015-10-21T03:01:11 *** berndj-blackout has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172015-10-21T03:02:58 *** berndj-blackout has quit IRC
182015-10-21T03:03:11 *** berndj-blackout has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192015-10-21T03:07:54 *** berndj-blackout has quit IRC
202015-10-21T03:08:12 *** berndj-blackout has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212015-10-21T03:09:09 *** berndj-blackout has quit IRC
222015-10-21T03:29:33 *** CodeShark has quit IRC
232015-10-21T03:29:52 *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
242015-10-21T04:31:57 *** CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252015-10-21T04:36:24 *** CodeShark has quit IRC
262015-10-21T05:01:24 *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272015-10-21T05:10:53 *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
282015-10-21T06:16:16 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
292015-10-21T06:21:45 *** Thireus has quit IRC
302015-10-21T06:42:05 *** midnightmagic has quit IRC
312015-10-21T06:47:03 *** midnightmagic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
322015-10-21T06:50:42 <GitHub9> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 14 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c6de5cc88614...3b20e239c602
332015-10-21T06:50:43 <GitHub9> bitcoin/master 78b82f4 Suhas Daftuar: Reverse the sort on the mempool's feerate index
342015-10-21T06:50:43 <GitHub9> bitcoin/master 49b6fd5 Pieter Wuille: Add Mempool Expire function to remove old transactions...
352015-10-21T06:50:44 <GitHub9> bitcoin/master 9c9b66f Matt Corallo: Fix calling mempool directly, instead of pool, in ATMP
362015-10-21T06:50:48 <GitHub173> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #6722: Limit mempool by throwing away the cheapest txn and setting min relay fee to it (master...mempoollimit) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6722
372015-10-21T06:50:58 <BlueMatt> heyyyyyyyy
382015-10-21T06:57:13 <jonasschnelli> Nice
392015-10-21T06:58:12 <jonasschnelli> Finally
402015-10-21T07:00:01 *** midnightmagic has quit IRC
412015-10-21T07:04:57 *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
422015-10-21T07:05:00 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, great now i can start reviewing it
432015-10-21T07:05:04 *** midnightmagic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
442015-10-21T07:05:05 * phantomcircuit flees for his life
452015-10-21T07:05:16 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: Ive done that before :/
462015-10-21T07:08:58 <wumpus> gmaxwell: would be interesting to check at least; switching to tcmalloc is as simple as LD_PRELOAD a library, don't know about jemalloc
472015-10-21T07:09:37 <gmaxwell> same thing for jemalloc.
482015-10-21T07:09:55 *** Arnavion has quit IRC
492015-10-21T07:10:08 *** AtashiCon has quit IRC
502015-10-21T07:11:19 *** midnightmagic has quit IRC
512015-10-21T07:12:59 <phantomcircuit> i wonder how much it would mess up things to put all the global config things into a locked object
522015-10-21T07:13:01 <wumpus> good as a workaround but I'd prefer a solution that doesn't involve making changes at that level. C++ makes it possible to use own memory pools/allocators for specific things, that can be discarded in one block (say) at the end of the function, that seems to be a more predictable way
532015-10-21T07:15:09 <gmaxwell> I wish the standard API just let you hint short and long lived objects.
542015-10-21T07:15:12 <wumpus> phantomcircuit: which things aren't protected by mutexes that should be ?
552015-10-21T07:15:29 * phantomcircuit looks at gmaxwell
562015-10-21T07:16:02 <wumpus> at the least you'd want a configuration object per module, not single global one, there is already too much lock centralization
572015-10-21T07:19:02 <phantomcircuit> wumpus, i believe we do bad things with stuff like fReindex and nPruneTarget
582015-10-21T07:22:59 *** midnightmagic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
592015-10-21T07:29:05 <wumpus> gmaxwell: yes, unfortunately C and C++ are very much lacking with regard to giving hints to your compiler or runtime, it presupposes them to be much more important
602015-10-21T07:29:10 <wumpus> s/important/smart
612015-10-21T07:51:00 <btcdrak> gmaxwell: what are the deployment options for SG?
622015-10-21T07:51:10 <btcdrak> err, SW.
632015-10-21T07:51:43 <gmaxwell> btcdrak: a flag day swap of the network and all software to use a different transaction seralization.
642015-10-21T07:52:02 <gmaxwell> I don't think it can be done.
652015-10-21T07:52:19 <btcdrak> gmaxwell: if we're going to have a hard fork, we may as well take the opportunity then...
662015-10-21T07:52:21 * btcdrak runs
672015-10-21T07:52:43 <phantomcircuit> btcdrak, there's a huge list of things that should absolutely be in a flag day
682015-10-21T07:54:19 <btcdrak> SW is a big win, solves a lot of problems and would make a flagday worth the hassle. If we do end up with a blocksize increase, SW should be added at the same time imo.
692015-10-21T07:54:48 * wumpus throws a hard frok after btcdrak
702015-10-21T07:55:35 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I thought I had convinced sipa a softfork was possible for SW a week or two ago. Or is that just too ugly?
712015-10-21T07:55:39 * btcdrak has never tried to cross-dress before
722015-10-21T07:56:31 <phantomcircuit> btcdrak, the blocksize thing is spv backwards compatible, the only other hard fork proposal im aware of that is, is for commitment schemes in the merkle tree root
732015-10-21T07:56:59 <phantomcircuit> note: i dont actually see that as being very useful
742015-10-21T07:57:06 <btcdrak> Luke-Jr: I'm sure I had a conversation with someone recently, maaku or BlueMatt maybe, about how SW could be a soft fork.
752015-10-21T07:57:19 <phantomcircuit> spv clients can all be updated remotely by the devs since they're apps in an app store thingie
762015-10-21T07:57:38 * Luke-Jr agrees SPV-backward-compatible is not a particularly desirable attribute.
772015-10-21T07:58:25 <phantomcircuit> SW cannot really be a soft fork, you can commit to the sw mtr as a sf but that only gets you the uninteresting part of it
782015-10-21T07:58:44 <phantomcircuit> oh but actually you can force the tx to commit to the sw txid in the script sig
792015-10-21T07:58:50 <phantomcircuit> ha you could but... please no
802015-10-21T07:59:26 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: would it really be worse than this thing cdecker is proposing?
812015-10-21T07:59:42 <gmaxwell> btcdrak: it cannot be a softfork. only a weak approximation of it can be, which is what the decker email is. But that approximation doesn't get you benefits like being able to sync blocks without downloading signatures. (itself likely elimiating most of the need for bloom filtered lite wallets, among other benefits); ... and the approximation has costs like a considerable utxo size overhead, a
822015-10-21T07:59:48 <gmaxwell> nd doubling the amount of transaction hashing we have to do.
832015-10-21T08:00:18 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I don't see why you can't sync without downloading signatures in the softfork.
842015-10-21T08:00:51 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: because you can't verify a txout you learn without the whole transaction.
852015-10-21T08:01:13 <gmaxwell> (unless in a softfork you mean extensionblock like softforks)
862015-10-21T08:02:24 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: the witness wouldn't be part of the "whole transaction"; it would be stored in a separate piece of data the block commits to
872015-10-21T08:02:50 <btcdrak> SW was quite well received in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ngtx5/could_the_segregated_witness_part_of_the/
882015-10-21T08:03:05 <phantomcircuit> block commits to the normal txid as normal and the sw id & script hash separately
892015-10-21T08:03:20 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: hm. interesting, you have a point. So you'd basically have a scriptpubkey that says "go look elsewhere for the signature"
902015-10-21T08:03:35 <Luke-Jr> right
912015-10-21T08:04:11 <gmaxwell> still ends up needing to store two IDs.
922015-10-21T08:04:29 <gmaxwell> hm. or maybe it doesn't.
932015-10-21T08:05:36 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, segregated witness id should match transaction id if you simply require all the scripts in the normal transaction to be OP_1
942015-10-21T08:05:37 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: damn you're right. This is pretty cool.
952015-10-21T08:05:58 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: yea.
962015-10-21T08:06:29 <Luke-Jr> âº
972015-10-21T08:06:31 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: empty is better.
982015-10-21T08:07:07 <gmaxwell> So the idea there would be a new p2sh like scriptpubkey which requires the scriptsig to be empty. The signatures are 'external', and commited in another hashtree commited to by the block.
992015-10-21T08:08:21 <gmaxwell> it's identical to SW over whatever span of tx history is exclusively using this scriptpubkey type..
1002015-10-21T08:09:06 <Luke-Jr> (which could be enforced by the softfork, if it was desirable)
1012015-10-21T08:10:18 *** rubensayshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1022015-10-21T08:11:09 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: then it turns it into a flagday which is the hard thing to avoid.
1032015-10-21T08:11:19 <Luke-Jr> sure
1042015-10-21T08:11:28 <Luke-Jr> personally I think we might as well just do it in a hardfork
1052015-10-21T08:11:35 <Luke-Jr> but a softfork is possible
1062015-10-21T08:12:03 <gmaxwell> the problem is that it is not very reasonable to demand the entire bitcoin ecosystem cut cold to new code all at once.
1072015-10-21T08:12:18 <gmaxwell> (I mean, you could try to demand it but the result would be epic amounts of failure)
1082015-10-21T08:12:30 <gmaxwell> esp at the high degree that people reimplement everything themselves.
1092015-10-21T08:12:36 <Luke-Jr> we'd need to ship a version with both code
1102015-10-21T08:12:52 <Luke-Jr> but that's true of any hardfork
1112015-10-21T08:13:14 <gmaxwell> Sure, yea yea, the issue isn't us. it's j random wallet thingy that hardly works at all _currently_. It might even manage to ship code for both modes, but then the other one just won't actually work.
1122015-10-21T08:13:38 <Luke-Jr> oh, you mean tx creation :D
1132015-10-21T08:13:56 <gmaxwell> because outside of bitcoin core most software (but by no means all) in the ecosystem is developed by teams of one or two people, and shipped with little to no systematic testing.
1142015-10-21T08:14:04 <gmaxwell> not just creation but handling.
1152015-10-21T08:14:18 <gmaxwell> Not how we still have no remotely decent block explorer thingy for elements alpha.
1162015-10-21T08:14:30 <Luke-Jr> yeah, I guess that's a big problem
1172015-10-21T08:15:16 * Luke-Jr ponders if we can do the softfork way that remains tx-compatible with a future hardfork
1182015-10-21T08:18:03 <gmaxwell> I think it's almost that already, without special considerations.
1192015-10-21T08:18:50 <Luke-Jr> maybe
1202015-10-21T09:01:54 *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1212015-10-21T09:20:01 <GitHub36> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3b20e239c602...0fbfc5106cd9
1222015-10-21T09:20:01 <GitHub36> bitcoin/master 41db8c4 Wladimir J. van der Laan: http: Restrict maximum size of request line + headers...
1232015-10-21T09:20:02 <GitHub36> bitcoin/master 0fbfc51 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #6859...
1242015-10-21T09:20:10 <GitHub199> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #6859: http: Restrict maximum size of http + headers (master...2015_10_max_http_headers) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6859
1252015-10-21T09:58:37 <gmaxwell> Is there a reason that for fee purposes we are not using max(size, sigops*BLOCK_MAX_BYTES/BLOCK_MAX_SIGOPS) as the size of a transaction?
1262015-10-21T09:58:45 <GitHub192> [bitcoin] domob1812 opened pull request #6863: [Test Suite] Fix test for null tx input (master...null-txin-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6863
1272015-10-21T10:02:41 <gmaxwell> I'd like to see this go in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6622 I've had this in testing on several nodes (including one acting as a gateway to the outside world) for several others for over a month now.
1282015-10-21T10:02:58 <gmaxwell> Does anyone have any views on what else we need? for #6622?
1292015-10-21T10:07:36 <gmaxwell> libevent related compile fail on one of my older fedora hosts, error: âEVENT_LOG_WARNâ was not declared in this scope
1302015-10-21T10:17:29 <btcdrak> gmaxwell: if this is the first time compiling since libevent merge you need to do a git clean -dfx
1312015-10-21T10:21:37 <gmaxwell> btcdrak: fwiw, in my case no concern but you might want to take care in advising people to git clean -d :)
1322015-10-21T10:21:53 <gmaxwell> "omg I was keeping my wallet in my source directory!"
1332015-10-21T10:25:32 <wumpus> at least mention what it does
1342015-10-21T10:26:06 <gmaxwell> yea.
1352015-10-21T10:26:47 <gmaxwell> So in any case, cleaning doesn't make that go away. I see some other EVENT logging stuff appears to be ifdef guarded.
1362015-10-21T10:26:53 <wumpus> but after larger changes to the build system it's good advice
1372015-10-21T10:27:07 <gmaxwell> this appears to have libevent-2.0.so.5.1.6
1382015-10-21T10:28:01 <wumpus> I don't know what the minimum version of libevent is that is supported, may be too old
1392015-10-21T10:29:45 <gmaxwell> well hacking out that one like got it to build.
1402015-10-21T10:29:47 <wumpus> though if it just errors about the logging stuff, commenting that out may make it compile further
1412015-10-21T10:29:53 <wumpus> good
1422015-10-21T10:29:56 <gmaxwell> er one line.
1432015-10-21T10:30:01 <gmaxwell> testing now.
1442015-10-21T10:30:17 <gmaxwell> warren: what libevent version does current RHES have?
1452015-10-21T10:30:28 <wumpus> it's not necessary, it's just nice, redirects libevent errors to our debug log, likely you could put some #ifdef guard around it...
1462015-10-21T10:30:36 <gmaxwell> unit tests pass.
1472015-10-21T10:31:19 <wumpus> #if LIBEVENT_VERSION_NUMBER >= 0x....
1482015-10-21T10:36:30 <warren> gmaxwell: RHEL7 you mean?
1492015-10-21T10:36:52 <gmaxwell> warren: Yes, whatever version is most current.
1502015-10-21T10:37:11 <warren> libevent-2.0.21-4.el7
1512015-10-21T10:37:37 <warren> Keep in mind that if <whatever> is important you need to actually look at the source package as they often will forward port things.
1522015-10-21T10:37:50 <gmaxwell> warren: okay, thats newer than what this host has in any case.
1532015-10-21T10:38:43 <warren> wow, that's the same version in Fedora 22. I guess it didn't change upstream in a while.
1542015-10-21T10:39:44 <gmaxwell> the particular host I was trying on is my oldest still running fedora box, with F19.
1552015-10-21T10:40:38 *** Naphex has quit IRC
1562015-10-21T10:42:04 *** Naphex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1572015-10-21T10:42:32 *** Naphex has quit IRC
1582015-10-21T10:42:33 *** Naphex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1592015-10-21T10:47:28 <wumpus> 2.0.21 is the one-to-latest stable of libevent, they have been working on 2.1 for a long time but it's still in alpha
1602015-10-21T10:58:35 <GitHub79> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #6864: [qt] Use monospace font (master...MarcoFalke-2015-qtMonospace) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6864
1612015-10-21T11:13:59 *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
1622015-10-21T11:40:40 <btcdrak> gmaxwell: omg
1632015-10-21T12:03:09 *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1642015-10-21T12:03:44 *** AtashiCon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1652015-10-21T12:45:48 *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1662015-10-21T12:47:19 *** molly has quit IRC
1672015-10-21T12:48:19 *** ParadoxSpiral has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1682015-10-21T12:53:56 *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1692015-10-21T13:04:57 *** berndj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1702015-10-21T13:06:40 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, ok to merge #6622, IMO
1712015-10-21T13:13:59 *** treehug88 has quit IRC
1722015-10-21T13:24:57 *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1732015-10-21T13:33:39 *** Thireus has quit IRC
1742015-10-21T13:33:53 *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752015-10-21T13:38:39 *** Thireus has quit IRC
1762015-10-21T13:51:02 *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1772015-10-21T14:00:49 *** wangchun has quit IRC
1782015-10-21T14:22:05 *** treehug88 has quit IRC
1792015-10-21T14:26:20 *** ghtdak has quit IRC
1802015-10-21T14:38:10 *** ghtdak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1812015-10-21T14:41:18 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1822015-10-21T14:43:19 *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1832015-10-21T14:52:13 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
1842015-10-21T14:52:25 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1852015-10-21T14:55:49 *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1862015-10-21T15:27:05 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
1872015-10-21T15:47:51 *** wangchun has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1882015-10-21T15:48:26 *** wangchun has quit IRC
1892015-10-21T15:48:46 *** wangchun has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1902015-10-21T16:02:50 *** rubensayshi has quit IRC
1912015-10-21T16:27:18 *** treehug88 has quit IRC
1922015-10-21T16:47:32 *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1932015-10-21T17:19:52 *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1942015-10-21T17:19:52 *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1952015-10-21T17:28:07 *** Anduck has quit IRC
1962015-10-21T17:28:59 *** Anduck has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1972015-10-21T17:29:50 *** teward has quit IRC
1982015-10-21T17:34:56 *** CodeShark__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1992015-10-21T17:37:09 *** teward has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2002015-10-21T17:39:26 <gmaxwell> cfields_: Any thoughts on #6622? If you look at it-- it's largely orthorgonal with your overall networking work, happening at a higher level. (later rate limiting support would probably compliment it nicely)
2012015-10-21T17:44:08 *** gribble has quit IRC
2022015-10-21T17:44:42 <cfields_> gmaxwell: hmm
2032015-10-21T17:46:27 <gmaxwell> wow, we never went and set TCP_NODELAY on our sockets? we should do that right away-- perhaps even in backports. We've talked about it before but apparently never did it.
2042015-10-21T17:46:37 *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052015-10-21T17:50:24 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, not that I disagree, but... what's your specific motivation to use NODELAY & disable Nagel?
2062015-10-21T17:52:23 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: now that we've removed all the gratitious sleeps from the networking, nagle is almost certantly slowing our performance. Consider how chatting the bitcoin protocol is. It likely also makes the traffic more bursty, which isn't good for other users sharing the network.
2072015-10-21T17:53:14 <gmaxwell> Basically all of our writes should be large enough that nagle shouldn't be saving us much, and the smaller writes we to tend to be latency important.
2082015-10-21T17:53:29 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, nod
2092015-10-21T17:53:43 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, just theory or is someone reporting this?
2102015-10-21T17:53:56 <jgarzik> certainly appears low hanging fruit
2112015-10-21T17:54:09 <cfields_> gmaxwell: agree that the logic for deciding what to avoid sending belongs at a higher level. The implementation itself seems a bit naive, though?
2122015-10-21T17:54:52 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: Suhas mentioned in an email some testing that seemed impacted by it. I'm just surprised we hadn't done this already, historical analysis suggests it's somewhat my fault! :(
2132015-10-21T17:55:24 <sdaftuar> jgarzik: yeah tcp_nodelay speeds up block relay by a round trip
2142015-10-21T17:55:26 <gmaxwell> (jgarzik you brought it up previously, and I (thinking of the 100ms sleeps) said we had much more low hanging fruit. :P )
2152015-10-21T17:56:06 <jgarzik> yep it was an issue when I rewrote low level network reads/writes code
2162015-10-21T17:56:26 <gmaxwell> I'd previously gone around to miner software and p2pool and had them fix it, even before it had been brought up in bitcoin core.
2172015-10-21T17:56:29 <jgarzik> thanks. I was curious where it would first trip up ppl
2182015-10-21T17:56:50 <btcdrak> can someone with rights please restart this travis job please? https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/86431798
2192015-10-21T17:58:17 <cfields_> btcdrak: just force-push
2202015-10-21T17:58:25 <btcdrak> not my PR
2212015-10-21T18:00:30 <morcos> wumpus: sipa: i've been trying to learn a bit more about this intensive memory usage in getblocktemplate. i still haven't quite figured out why the framentation is so bad that nothing can get clean up, but there are a few things happening
2222015-10-21T18:00:56 <morcos> during CreateNewBlock, we fetch all the coins needed for all the txs in our mempool.
2232015-10-21T18:01:20 <morcos> there is a 2x hit for this, as we make a copy in pcoinstip (assuming they aren't already cached there) and a copy in the view in miner.cpp
2242015-10-21T18:02:04 <morcos> also note that the dbcache size we set here will have just been ignored as we're loading up pcoinstip. so if we're over that it'll just get flushed again once we're done with CNB
2252015-10-21T18:02:53 <morcos> also because the rpc call is running in a different thread, if the populating of the cache in pcoinstip trips the loadfactor of the CCoinsMap. Then we'll end up moving the CCoinsMap memory to a different arena.
2262015-10-21T18:03:26 <wumpus> right, that is how it will happen with the coinsview caches
2272015-10-21T18:03:38 <morcos> so both the size of the coins in the miner.cpp view and the size in the coins of pcoinstip could possibly be replicated in #rpcthreads + 1
2282015-10-21T18:04:11 <wumpus> indeed
2292015-10-21T18:04:12 <gmaxwell> morcos: sipa and BlueMatt have been been working on the view cache memory usage.
2302015-10-21T18:04:49 <morcos> i'm curious as to what they're doing
2312015-10-21T18:04:50 <wumpus> it seems a bit redundant that the child cache also stores everything
2322015-10-21T18:04:53 <jgarzik> morcos, RE fragmentation part of that has to do with the low level allocator that how that memory is returned to the OS. Older allocators use sbrk(), which make it impossible to release memory unless there is absolutely no data structure, including hidden-from-app mgmt ADTs, within the memory range. Ditto newer mmap-based allocators, which will not munmap unless there is perfect reclamation by app + libc.
2332015-10-21T18:04:57 <morcos> yes, thats what i was thinking
2342015-10-21T18:05:14 <jgarzik> So you're stuck even if libc allocation structs are left behind
2352015-10-21T18:05:28 <jgarzik> (typically two pointers, in negative offsets from your DS)
2362015-10-21T18:05:29 <morcos> wumpus
2372015-10-21T18:06:00 <wumpus> especially as this is a read-only view
2382015-10-21T18:06:03 <morcos> wumpus: which is the child cache? The cache in view has to store everything b/c it might get modified by in mempool txs
2392015-10-21T18:06:12 <wumpus> oh it isn't?
2402015-10-21T18:06:29 <morcos> however the cache in pcoinstip doesn't need to be populated
2412015-10-21T18:06:50 <morcos> view (in miner.cpp) is backed by pcoinstip is backed by the database
2422015-10-21T18:06:52 <wumpus> that's the parent cache
2432015-10-21T18:07:36 <wumpus> and sure - the modified coins need to be stored
2442015-10-21T18:07:47 <morcos> i think its kind of silly that you set a dbcache size, but then can blow through that inside CreateNewBlock
2452015-10-21T18:08:09 <morcos> of course its also made much worse by the organization of the mining code
2462015-10-21T18:08:24 <morcos> no reason to go through every single tx
2472015-10-21T18:09:09 <wumpus> e.g. the coins that are the same in the child and parent cache don't need to be stored twice
2482015-10-21T18:09:38 <wumpus> only if the one in the child cache starts to deviate because ti is changed by a mempool transaction
2492015-10-21T18:09:49 <morcos> yes, thats what i'm suggesting.. when you do a fetch from the child cache, just pass them down from the grandparent cache without storing them intermediately in the parent cache
2502015-10-21T18:10:38 <wumpus> right, assuming they aren't changed in the parent cache, they don't need to be cached there
2512015-10-21T18:10:55 <morcos> this is related to #5967
2522015-10-21T18:11:14 <morcos> where i change the assumptions that the parent cache can't be flushed
2532015-10-21T18:13:26 <morcos> slight shift of subject, how do most miners use bitcoind now?
2542015-10-21T18:13:36 <morcos> they do use getblocktemplate?
2552015-10-21T18:14:00 <wumpus> is there another way?
2562015-10-21T18:14:01 <morcos> and in effect have CreateNewBlock control their mining algorithm, or they do something else?
2572015-10-21T18:14:03 *** CodeShark_ has quit IRC
2582015-10-21T18:14:04 *** CodeShark has quit IRC
2592015-10-21T18:14:08 *** CodeShark__ has quit IRC
2602015-10-21T18:14:15 <morcos> i don't know i thought i saw chatter somewhere about miners not using it
2612015-10-21T18:14:18 *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2622015-10-21T18:14:25 <morcos> but i dont' knwo what else you would do
2632015-10-21T18:14:41 <wumpus> I think they all use getblocktemplate in some form or another, although some may have made large changes to the code
2642015-10-21T18:14:55 <morcos> i'm wondering how to think about rewriting the mining code
2652015-10-21T18:15:05 <morcos> it could use a substantial rewrite
2662015-10-21T18:15:32 <morcos> but i guess it doesn't have to be thought of as consensus critical if the testing/submitting aspects of it haven't changed?
2672015-10-21T18:15:34 *** CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2682015-10-21T18:16:01 <wumpus> block validation is consensus critical, creating blocks from the mempool isn't
2692015-10-21T18:16:08 <gmaxwell> morcos: I suspect you misunderstood whatever that chatter was (or someone was confused); everyone uses GBT to get work from bitcoind. Many parties also do other stuff as well.
2702015-10-21T18:16:17 <gavinand1esen> morcos: +1 . I'd suggest starting with a clean sheet of paper, and figuring out what would be best for solo miners / mining pools
2712015-10-21T18:16:31 <morcos> it seems like there is some low hanging fruit. once you already have 999,900 bytes in a block, you don't need to scan the remaining 2GB of txs just to see if you find a magical 100 byte tx for instance
2722015-10-21T18:16:51 <morcos> gmaxwell: ok good... i definitely didn't understand whatever i read
2732015-10-21T18:16:57 <gmaxwell> so long as the resulting block is valid I don't think it matters how it was done; so I think it's fine to rewrite.
2742015-10-21T18:17:29 <gmaxwell> morcos: might have been a comment that few/no one is using GBT to go from pools to mining devices; which is the case.
2752015-10-21T18:17:52 <wumpus> yeah it obviously matters that it generates correct blocks, but the exact algorithm is not set in stone
2762015-10-21T18:18:19 <gmaxwell> morcos: as far as rewrite goes, being able to get createnewblock out of the latency critical path for mining would be the biggest win from the user's perspective.
2772015-10-21T18:18:30 <morcos> does it make sense to start with a simple improvement to the existing algorithm, and then separately or later try to use more advanced logic that takes ancestor packages into account? would it make sense to ever support 2 different algorithms
2782015-10-21T18:19:13 <morcos> gmaxwell: can you explain that a bit more? you mean once a new block comes in, the time it takes to have a new potential header to work on?
2792015-10-21T18:19:15 <gmaxwell> (e.g. by returning an empty template when there isn't one precomputed, then computing a template in the background.).. and thats independant of the algorithims, but it means that more computationally expensive algorithims would be reasonable.
2802015-10-21T18:19:16 <morcos> even if its not optimal
2812015-10-21T18:19:48 <morcos> yes, ok that makes a lot of sense
2822015-10-21T18:20:38 <gmaxwell> morcos: what I was thinking was: there is a cached block template, when a new block comes in, it's no longer valid (as we have a new block) so its flushed. If there is no cached template available, just generate one that has no transactions (fast), and trigger creating a template in the background.... and the background one can get recomputed on a timer or on new-block arrival, so long as GBT re
2832015-10-21T18:20:44 <gmaxwell> quests keep coming in.
2842015-10-21T18:20:59 <gmaxwell> we cache CNB right now, but it's "too late" :)
2852015-10-21T18:21:27 <jgarzik> +1
2862015-10-21T18:21:45 <jgarzik> that's been the general template for a rewrite, for years
2872015-10-21T18:22:12 *** Guest98736 is now known as petertodd
2882015-10-21T18:22:31 <morcos> gmaxwell: yes, thats what we were just discussing...
2892015-10-21T18:22:32 *** CodeShark_ has quit IRC
2902015-10-21T18:25:32 <morcos> so a new thread for template generation is ok?
2912015-10-21T18:26:46 <gmaxwell> morcos: I think so!
2922015-10-21T18:26:55 <jgarzik> practically required
2932015-10-21T18:26:56 <wumpus> I don't see why not, but make sure to only do the work if a node is actually mining
2942015-10-21T18:27:22 <morcos> what should a call to getblocktemplate do if cs_main is locked? seems too bad that you really dont' care for a lot of the cs_main locks
2952015-10-21T18:27:39 <morcos> but if the chain is being updated, you might prefer to wait for that to happen before the template is returned
2962015-10-21T18:27:42 <jgarzik> does it need cs_main if it's simply returning a cached version?
2972015-10-21T18:28:04 <jgarzik> seems like the RPC call should return cached version, and b/g compute thread is what needs the lock
2982015-10-21T18:28:05 <morcos> i suppose maybe you could lock the template if you know you're activating a new chain
2992015-10-21T18:28:28 <morcos> ok i guess i need to learn more about how notification of new tips works anyway
3002015-10-21T18:28:55 <jgarzik> if a new block comes in, the cache is invalidated + regenerated as an empty template + kicks off new gen thread
3012015-10-21T18:28:59 <morcos> but yes i agree in theory you should just need a tiny lock on whether your template is switched to the new one
3022015-10-21T18:29:01 <gavinand1esen> I was very close to refactoring the block validation code a tiny bit so the cs_main lock was released while transaction validity was checked... theoretically not a difficult change
3032015-10-21T18:29:33 <morcos> gavinand1esen: that seems scary
3042015-10-21T18:29:35 *** Thireus has quit IRC
3052015-10-21T18:29:41 <gavinand1esen> that's why theoretically....
3062015-10-21T18:29:52 <jgarzik> should just need a quick swap upon new-block, not a long term lock
3072015-10-21T18:30:16 <morcos> jgarzik: isn't the technical word for that "tiny"?
3082015-10-21T18:30:38 <jgarzik> can be lockless technically :)
3092015-10-21T18:31:25 <gmaxwell> yes, the cache could be RCU, but I don't think thats needed. :)
3102015-10-21T18:31:40 <jgarzik> I was thinking more std::atomic
3112015-10-21T18:33:19 <morcos> ok all sounds good... i'll give it a shot
3122015-10-21T18:34:11 <gavinand1esen> morcos: I was mapping out the work needed to validate blocks in parallel (as part of prep work for looking at broadcasting 'weak blocks'); was pondering an extension to CCoinsViewCache that used leveldb read-only snapshots to validate against the UTXO set as of the last block, which could let validation against two different CCoinsViewCache's happen in parallel without the cs_main lock
3132015-10-21T18:35:00 <gavinand1esen> morcos: that idea might work for a cs_main-free CreateNewBlock, too....
3142015-10-21T18:35:40 *** gavinand1esen is now known as gavinandresen
3152015-10-21T18:36:25 <sipa> signature validation already happens without the cs_main lock
3162015-10-21T18:41:35 <morcos> sipa: you mean b/c they are happening in other threads? but the cs_main lock is held and any further processing waits for them to finish
3172015-10-21T18:42:17 <morcos> sipa: btw, did you see my comments about doing threaded signature checking in ATMP in addition to in ConnectBlock?
3182015-10-21T18:42:40 <morcos> it seems thats when the actually work is being done a lot of the time anyway
3192015-10-21T18:44:36 <sipa> morcos: i did not see that, but it certainly may make sense
3202015-10-21T18:44:52 <sipa> i'd like to move signature checking to be something fully asynchronous though
3212015-10-21T18:45:17 <sipa> with a queue that is worked on by threads, and notification callbacks happen when validatiin succeeds/fails
3222015-10-21T18:46:04 <morcos> oh... huh, so a block could just assume that all signatures were valid and keep processing the rest of the blcok, but only at the very end wait
3232015-10-21T18:46:11 <morcos> wow that would be way better
3242015-10-21T18:46:21 <sipa> it's nontrivial :)
3252015-10-21T18:46:27 <morcos> not for you!
3262015-10-21T18:46:44 <jcorgan> i think it would be a great idea...if sipa does it :-)
3272015-10-21T18:46:52 <gmaxwell> morcos: yes, ... behold the sadness of CHECKSIG NOT, however.
3282015-10-21T18:47:21 <morcos> hmm... so you don't even know whether you want it to be valid or not
3292015-10-21T18:47:35 <gmaxwell> if all of script is async then that goes away.
3302015-10-21T18:47:36 <morcos> i thought processors were good at branching. :)
3312015-10-21T18:48:00 <morcos> what do you mean goes away?
3322015-10-21T18:48:23 <gmaxwell> I mean that if the thing you dispatch is the whole script and not just ecdsa then there is no chance that you really want it to fail.
3332015-10-21T18:48:31 <jgarzik> processors try to predict branching because they suck at it ;p
3342015-10-21T18:48:44 <morcos> oh...
3352015-10-21T18:48:49 <gmaxwell> but then the state that needs to be dispatched is large.
3362015-10-21T18:49:19 <jgarzik> The kernel compiles Berkeley packet filters in a JIT - would be amusing to JIT scripts & sigs
3372015-10-21T18:49:40 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: by amusing you mean the tremendous fun in finding all the attacks...
3382015-10-21T18:49:43 <gmaxwell> :P
3392015-10-21T18:50:44 <gmaxwell> morcos: in Elements alpha we turned CHECKSIG into CHECKSIGVERIFY (if you want a checksig thats allowed to fail, wrap it in an if).
3402015-10-21T18:50:57 <sipa> gmaxwell: i mean parallellizing script validation
3412015-10-21T18:51:02 <sipa> not signature validation
3422015-10-21T18:51:18 <gmaxwell> sipa: k. then the negation problem goes away... but lots of data to manage.
3432015-10-21T18:52:19 <gmaxwell> (the CHECKSIGVERIFY vs CHECKSIG is also motivated by batch EC signature checking, which is faster and only gives you a pass/fail for the whole batch).
3442015-10-21T18:52:20 <morcos> i'd feel better about if we more formally declared what the state that can affect script validation is
3452015-10-21T18:52:43 <morcos> yeah do we need CHECKSIG?
3462015-10-21T18:54:04 <gmaxwell> No, there is no need for CHECKSIG--- in theory we could softfork convert existing checksig into a CHECKSIGVERIFY; though some risk of breaking some crazy existing scriptpubkey and making it unspendable.
3472015-10-21T18:54:45 <gmaxwell> So thats probably not advisable, but any future checksig like operators will certantly be VERIFY only.
3482015-10-21T18:55:09 <morcos> wouldn't that not be a soft fork because of the CHECKSIG NOT's
3492015-10-21T18:55:34 <morcos> it seems like you could just bump tx version if you didn't want to worry about existing scriptpubkeys
3502015-10-21T18:56:16 <gmaxwell> morcos: it would be a soft fork: If you had a CHECKSIG NOT with a bad input you'd just get denied before you got to the NOT.
3512015-10-21T18:57:02 <gmaxwell> Less agressive but probably equally useful is CHECKSIG requiring that the only signature that is allowed to fail is the zero length signature. (so you can decide if it fails or not without doing anything but checking the length)
3522015-10-21T18:58:15 <gmaxwell> morcos: key criteria for a soft-fork is that it cannot turn any invalid thing valid. So a soft fork that just added additional reasons for the script to fail when excuting a checksig would be a softfork (if not an advisable one!)
3532015-10-21T18:58:49 <gmaxwell> the only-zero-length can fail also has the advantage of being less potentially incompatible with existing scriptpubkeys.
3542015-10-21T18:59:00 <morcos> gmaxwell: yes, i just got confused about whether verify shortcircuited or not
3552015-10-21T18:59:32 <morcos> ah so its the tx version of the spending tx that matters
3562015-10-21T18:59:36 <gmaxwell> As far as version, it's a little complicated. We don't have versions on txouts in transactions. Though we do track the transaction version in the utxo set at least.
3572015-10-21T19:00:23 <gmaxwell> so one could use that utxo version to decide what rules to apply. alternatively one could use the spending transaction, version... and if you need to make a signature with the old rules to have it pass, then use the old version.
3582015-10-21T19:00:30 <gmaxwell> So I think that would work.
3592015-10-21T19:00:39 <morcos> yeah, but its more messy than i hope
3602015-10-21T19:00:40 <morcos> d
3612015-10-21T19:01:08 <jgarzik> one step at a time - just getting a b/g regen would be nice
3622015-10-21T19:01:09 <jgarzik> ;p
3632015-10-21T19:01:25 <gmaxwell> Not really sure if it's worth it for the existing checksig... esp since for ECDSA with our current encoding it only gives you the async gains. For the schnorr in elements it allows a 2x verification speedup from batch verification.
3642015-10-21T19:22:45 <gmaxwell> sipa: can you please get cdecker to not call his work "normalized transaction ids"
3652015-10-21T19:22:55 <gmaxwell> (or have you met with him already?)
3662015-10-21T19:40:26 <sipa> gmaxwell: just did
3672015-10-21T19:40:31 <sipa> why not?
3682015-10-21T20:19:02 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3692015-10-21T20:29:28 *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3702015-10-21T20:36:14 <gmaxwell> sipa: because of the instant automatic assumption that this results in a transaction ID that cannot change.
3712015-10-21T20:36:37 <gmaxwell> sipa: did you see that luke figured out how to make SW a soft-fork, rather elegantly too?
3722015-10-21T20:37:56 <sipa> no, but i did talk about it with cdecker
3732015-10-21T20:44:23 <sipa> gmaxwell: well it'd be a second id... transactions would have a txid and an ntxid
3742015-10-21T20:45:16 <CodeShark> +1 to getting rid of scriptSig :)
3752015-10-21T20:46:15 <gmaxwell> sipa: but the ntxid is not actually non-malleable. So if you write software expecting that it is, you will be disappointed (and maybe even suffer funds loss).
3762015-10-21T20:47:28 <gmaxwell> It's non-malleable against certian kinds of operations under certian conditions, and quite useful. But we had this problem before that people assume this ID is actually more useful for accounting purposes than it is (with your prior writeup)
3772015-10-21T20:48:28 <sipa> anything except sighash flags that isn't covered?
3782015-10-21T20:49:34 <gmaxwell> signer just modifying the transaction; e.g. I pay you and it takes two hours to confirm, and during that time I RBF the payment (to boost the fees, for example). You still get paid all the same but now your software is confused when the ntxid changed out from under you.
3792015-10-21T20:49:58 <CodeShark> you can also stick in some NO_OPs into the script just to mess with the system :)
3802015-10-21T20:50:04 <gmaxwell> And if you go look at the malleability paper from fc2015 thats the kind of thing wallets were doing with txid and getting horribly confused.
3812015-10-21T20:50:08 <CodeShark> or write a different script with equivalent logic
3822015-10-21T20:50:09 <sipa> gmaxwell: that's not malleability
3832015-10-21T20:50:34 <sipa> but fair enough
3842015-10-21T20:50:37 <sipa> do you have a better idea?
3852015-10-21T20:50:39 <sipa> name
3862015-10-21T20:51:17 <CodeShark> so the main feature is that malleating the transaction requires creating a new signature/new signatures?
3872015-10-21T20:51:36 <gmaxwell> I think we should do the SW instead, and then it's just the same old txid and we do not introduce yet another ID that people need to deal with which is supposted to help malleabiity but still can't actually be used as a payment identifier.
3882015-10-21T20:52:01 <sipa> SW doesn't help against these
3892015-10-21T20:52:23 <sipa> it also changes txid on resigning/modifying a transaction
3902015-10-21T20:52:29 <gmaxwell> Indeed, it doesn't but it doesn't introduce yet another ID which also doesn't do what people expect it to do unconditionally (because the expectation is unreasonable)
3912015-10-21T20:53:14 <gmaxwell> and it has a number of additional benefits. (e.g. allowing private lite wallets that don't download signatures; or syncing the history without syncing the signatures)
3922015-10-21T20:53:36 <sipa> i fear this is a lot more work than you think
3932015-10-21T20:53:40 <sipa> not just in bitcoin core
3942015-10-21T20:54:00 <gmaxwell> And not increasing the size of the utxo set.
3952015-10-21T20:54:12 <sipa> it means we need new messages for blocks and transactions
3962015-10-21T20:54:16 <sipa> to relay extra data
3972015-10-21T20:54:19 <sipa> store that on disk
3982015-10-21T20:54:24 <gmaxwell> You can use it in a softfork manner without updating. Actually the bitcoin protocol _used_ to relay extra data outside of transactions but that got removed.
3992015-10-21T20:54:26 <sipa> go fetch it from peers that have it
4002015-10-21T20:54:44 <gmaxwell> Yes, it complicates relay; which is the downside compared to the approach in EA.
4012015-10-21T20:55:07 <sipa> it introduces a new type of block witholding
4022015-10-21T20:55:17 <gmaxwell> sipa: I don't think it does.
4032015-10-21T20:55:39 <sipa> if an old client gives you a block without the witness you need to go fetch it elsewhere
4042015-10-21T20:55:56 <gmaxwell> sipa: or you just require that the network of updated nodes be connected.
4052015-10-21T20:56:13 <sipa> so you stop accepting blocks from old nodes? yuck...
4062015-10-21T20:56:15 <gmaxwell> E.g. you wouldn't fetch a block from a older protocol version.
4072015-10-21T20:56:26 <gmaxwell> which, of course, could be deployed first.
4082015-10-21T20:58:03 *** paveljanik has quit IRC
4092015-10-21T20:58:26 <gmaxwell> In exchange you: Avoid giving the public two txids both of which don't do what they expect, you avoid increasing the UTXO set size by 30%, you allow new sync methods that don't transfer the signatures (saving 2/3rd the bandwidth), and you avoid double hashing transaction data to compute two IDs on it.
4102015-10-21T20:59:32 <morcos> 9 blocks in the last 20 mins?
4112015-10-21T21:00:41 <sipa> and you get a single txid that equally doesn't do what you expect, pretty much need everyone to upgrade anyway, or you need to keep supporting chains of transactions in which some are old-version which breaks even the intended effect
4122015-10-21T21:01:53 <sipa> while ntxid is strictly better at accomplishing the goal of malleability protection, and is a simple new opcode to softfork in
4132015-10-21T21:02:05 <sipa> (with the downsides you mentioned, yes)
4142015-10-21T21:02:09 <gmaxwell> sipa: the txid is functonally the same as the ntxid but at least it's not confusing people by being something new that they'll understand as existing to accomplish something that cannot be accomplished.
4152015-10-21T21:02:25 <gmaxwell> sipa: it is strictly inferior.
4162015-10-21T21:02:35 <sipa> ntxid is recursive; sw is not - if some transactions in the chain do not use sw, it breaks; ntxid does not break
4172015-10-21T21:03:22 <gmaxwell> sipa: okay point... This is true, but the cost is a 30% increase in utxo size. I don't think that is reasonable.
4182015-10-21T21:03:48 <gmaxwell> thats a significant and perminant increase in the total operating cost of the system.
4192015-10-21T21:04:48 <gmaxwell> as far as recursive case, it's not so simple-- for contracts all the participants are using the new style scriptpubkeys and you can enforce it so its fine.
4202015-10-21T21:05:21 <sipa> hmm, i thought i did the math before, and it was 20% extra
4212015-10-21T21:05:25 <sipa> now it seems to be 50% extra
4222015-10-21T21:05:31 <gmaxwell> for ntxid none of the existing software is using these IDs, so gain none of the protection, and nodes need reference rewriting to fixup transactions when their parents change.
4232015-10-21T21:06:04 <sipa> yeah, that fixup is annoying
4242015-10-21T21:07:07 <gmaxwell> I agree its somewhat less annyoing then having to provide an upgraded relay mechenism, but we need to upgrade relay regardless... and doing weird topology things to assure connectivity, but these are one time and short term costs.
4252015-10-21T21:07:16 <sipa> this makes no sense
4262015-10-21T21:07:40 <sipa> the average serialized size of txouts in the utxo set (excluding txid) is 7 bytes
4272015-10-21T21:07:50 <sipa> "transactions": 7386379,
4282015-10-21T21:07:50 <sipa> "txouts": 32564578,
4292015-10-21T21:07:50 <sipa> "bytes_serialized": 480114635,
4302015-10-21T21:08:13 <gmaxwell> My 30% was just 22+22+22+4+4+32 vs that plus 32 more.
4312015-10-21T21:08:44 <gmaxwell> sipa: f2pools empty pubkey attack... but I didn't think it was that many.
4322015-10-21T21:09:11 <sipa> also, i though the total size was way larger than 480 MB
4332015-10-21T21:09:23 <gmaxwell> oh indeed, something there is screwed. lemme check.
4342015-10-21T21:24:16 <gmaxwell> Myserty solved, obfscuation change broke the stats by cherry-picking bugged code from sipa's addrindex branch.
4352015-10-21T21:24:19 <gmaxwell> Author: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
4362015-10-21T21:24:21 <gmaxwell> Date: Wed Oct 7 17:12:24 2015 -0700
4372015-10-21T21:24:41 <gmaxwell> - stats.nSerializedSize += 32 + slValue.size();
4382015-10-21T21:24:41 <gmaxwell> + stats.nSerializedSize += 32 + pcursor->GetKeySize();
4392015-10-21T21:25:50 <GitHub125> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #6865: Fix chainstate serialized_size computation (master...fixchainsize) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6865
4402015-10-21T21:31:11 <sipa> so, it's a 22% increase to add ntxid at this point
4412015-10-21T21:31:24 <sipa> "bytes_serialized": 1065420089
4422015-10-21T21:33:49 <btcdrak> sipa: that's a lot
4432015-10-21T21:34:22 <gmaxwell> indeed, its a figure that is artifically lowered by the spam attacks...
4442015-10-21T21:34:27 *** devrandom has quit IRC
4452015-10-21T21:35:18 <sipa> lowered?
4462015-10-21T21:35:44 <sipa> ah, the 22% is lowered - yes
4472015-10-21T22:19:06 <GitHub36> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #6866: [trivial] fix white space in rpc help messages (master...MarcoFalke-2015-rpcWhitespace) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6866
4482015-10-21T22:50:39 *** sipa has quit IRC
4492015-10-21T22:50:48 *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4502015-10-21T22:58:41 *** molly has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4512015-10-21T23:01:19 *** moli has quit IRC
4522015-10-21T23:22:17 *** droark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4532015-10-21T23:22:25 *** droark has quit IRC
4542015-10-21T23:46:22 <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: your headers first relay test... can you try that with nagle disabled? :P (e.g. is most of the benefit from the change nagle? (trivial patch)
4552015-10-21T23:48:25 <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: basically all the benefit is nagle
4562015-10-21T23:48:47 <sdaftuar> if we turn it off, the existing relay code works as it's supposed to (one round trip instead of two)
4572015-10-21T23:49:25 <sdaftuar> #6494 wasn't intended to "fix" that bug, it's intended to make relaying generally work better in the case of reorgs
4582015-10-21T23:49:50 <sdaftuar> it just happens to not trigger nagle
4592015-10-21T23:49:59 <gmaxwell> yea, obviously #6494 is good and we should do it.
4602015-10-21T23:50:50 <gmaxwell> oh actually it was gavin that was testing it sorry.
4612015-10-21T23:55:37 <GitHub20> [bitcoin] gmaxwell opened pull request #6867: Set TCP_NODELAY on P2P sockets. (master...nodelay) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6867